The TPP is the New World Order

Image: Pakalert Press
Image: Pakalert Press

Glenn Beck correctly says that the left, the progressives, have always dreamed of global command and control governance. They first tried it with Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, which promptly fell apart. Out of World War II came the United Nations, but over the years, it has become discredited and disjointed.

But one thing we know about progressives – they never give up.

Next up for them is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its lesser known cousin the US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It is estimated that, should it be enacted, the TPP alone will control $27 trillion, or more than 40 percent of the entire world’s GDP.

We all know what the job of Washington lobbyists is. Their entire purpose for being is to purchase favors and loopholes from the government on behalf of the large, multi-national corporations they represent. Beck’s team researched TPP, and in doing so, they found something astonishing. Over the last eight years of Obama’s reign, lobbyists have taken in $2.6 billion to spread around for their various causes, of which we assume are many. But fully one third of all that money raised has been spent to push pro-TPP interests. Over thirty percent has been consumed by one issue. Wonder why that is?

And why is the TPP such a huge secret? What is in it that they don’t want the public to know – until it’s too late? I’m certain there is plenty – most of which we may never know. Look at the disaster that is Obamacare and what was hidden in its 2,700 pages. The TPP is more than double that, at 5,544 pages. Oh, and of the 30 chapters of the TPP, only 10 have anything to do with actual trade. That’s odd…for a trade agreement.

Representative Alan Grayson of Florida and democrat hack complained about the cloak and dagger rules for viewing the TPP. Last year, he told the Huff Po that, “They created ground rules that are farcical. He couldn’t have staff in the room, couldn’t go home with documents, couldn’t take notes of the documents, couldn’t discuss the contents with staff, constituents in the media or other members of Congress outside of a classified facility, and had to be watched while he was reading.” Are these the plans for a D-Day invasion or a trade agreement?

Celeste Drake, a trade policy specialist for the AFL/CIO, said she was allowed to read the document. She also says she can’t discuss any of what she read because she could be arrested for doing so. Drake doesn’t know if anyone has been arrested and prosecuted, but she does know that no one who has read the text wants to test it.

This next tidbit should scare the crap out of you. According to Jeff Sessions, the TPP will be run by the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission (TPPC), which will be set up in secret and will create a new trans-national governance structure. Who will be on it is yet unknown, but it will likely be representatives of multi-national banks and corporations – not ambassadors of nations, like at the U.N. – none of which will have U.S. sovereign interests in mind.

Within the TPP is something called a “living document clause.” The TPPC will be the sole caretakers of this “living agreement clause,” which should send chills up the spine of anyone who cares at all about freedom and national sovereignty.

The Living Agreement Clause will allow the TPPC to change the rules however they see fit, whenever they see fit. In other words, our Congress, none of whom should vote for this, could think they are voting for this wonderful trade agreement, presented as a positive, and, the day after it is signed into law, the TPPC could change it.

This living agreement is the culmination of what we’ve been railing about forever – that progressives see the Constitution as…you guessed it…a living document.

But unlike the Constitution, which is still difficult to change, the TPPC can alter the TPP with a simple vote, and there’s not a thing we will be able to do about it.

Also, as part of the TPP, a new international trade court will be established, where international corporations will be able sue the United States, who signed the agreement, and force us to change our laws to accommodate them, regardless of the unconstitutionality of the corporation’s suit.

The ultimate goal of the TPP, and also the lesser known TTIP, is to usurp authority of nations and eventually abandon the idea of the sovereign nation-state altogether, in favor of an amalgam of borderless territories. This was the dream of the E.U. and has always been the dream of the progressive movement.

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutional blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance) and Free Republic.

COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network

Subcsribe for new articles direct to your inbox

Enter your best email below

Join 21,444 other subscribers

56 Comments

  1. Vote ‘NO’ for TPP…and while we’re at it, vote to kick the U.N. off American soil. But this goes back to what they told us in the military…wish in one hand and crap in the other! The elites & secret societies are too powerful and in total control. They must be eliminated!

  2. These people have no honor no values. When you have a group of like minded individuals who are unable to trust each other, they will fail. When their greed over rules basic logic in instituting worthless paper money .With out the ability to save only borrow at inflated rates, how long do you think that can last. All the games with in games they played are no longer working for them. Take hart in the realization that you only have to sit back and watch the show. The whole system is in self destruction mode. Please make sure that when the system falters you have done everything you can do to stay safe.

  3. I have never understood why ONE WORLD ORDER is the destiny of these socialist hate filled political hacks communist socialist hell bent on destroying the only nation that gave so many so much. I am glad I had seen the best years the USA has had to offer. I do believe once that is accomplished its over. Without the USA there is no free world anymore. Canadian Free Press has that posted its so true.

  4. Remember, 2/3 of TPP has NOTHING to do with trade.

    And they are keeping top secret what that 2/3 says.

    Too bad Crooked Hillary didn’t load TPP on her illegal bathroom server. The world would have it by now.

  5. This is an excellent explanation of TPP. How is it even legal that a piece of legislation can be handled in this way before TPP is even passed, e.g.. pols are arrested if they even speak of it? Have any pols been threatened with their life if they don’t go along with TPP? How much are pols being paid off to push TPP and attack Trump?

    Everybody needs to keep repeating the talking points of the TPP issue. The Moslem invasion is a device to enable TPP. Moslems are being dumped here to create turmoil, break up the culture, and keep down revolt against TPP. TPP is the more immediate
    enemy. Once they get TPP, they will come down on the Moslems. Ovomit was the perfect tool for the globalist mafia because he’s Moslem and not American, so his deranged plot dovetails with the TPP deranged plot…and he’s getting sick rich (how much of that Iranian ransom is a kickback?)

  6. The only way to stop this and other crap is to vote for Donald Trump and other Repubkicans that stand against the TTP.

  7. All of this: the New World Order, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc., etc., would be impossible had the 18th-century founders (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial forbears) established society and government upon Yahweh’s unchanging moral law. All of this and thousands of other consequences are the result of the constitutional framers and other founders rejecting Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty and thus His law as supreme:

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1,7)

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutble moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Hey, Ted R. Weiland, read this and weep:

      “A sweeping generalization applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy.”

      Now that you know you’ve been ignorantly engaged in pushing your agenda based on a fallacy of sweeping generalization, you should resist the temptation to do this again.

      But for some reason, I know you won’t.

      You will continue your relentless campaign against the U.S. Constitution using the Bible as your prop risking the anger of God.

      • When did the Constitution become exempt from the “general rules” of God? Aren’t we commanded to resist any usurper of His law? How many supreme laws can a land have?

        • What is your interpretation of “the general rules of God”? Are you arguing Supreme Court rulings? What exactly are the conflicts you see between the Bible and the U.S. Constitution?

          • The term “general rules” is one that I did not coin in regard to Biblical law. This is why I put it in quotation marks. But when I thought about it, which I appreciate your getting me to do, I remembered that there are two general Biblical rules: Love Yahweh with all of our heart, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

            As far as the Constitution being incompatible with Biblical law, can we start with the Preamble? The first three words of it introduce the author of its “living” (i.e. not the same yesterday, today and forever) foundation. This author WeThePeople declares that a union, more perfect than the Colonial American theocracies and/or the Articles of Confederation, is to be formed in violation of Exodus 34:12.

            Did you want me to list a bunch of these conflicting items and move on to “establishing justice,” even though it has already been established, according to Psalms 89:14? Or do we just want to look at the items one at a time?

          • The two general biblical rules, per you, are actually the greatest commandments issued by Jesus Christ in response to a question.

            So the first conflict you see between the Bible and the U.S. Constitution is that the Bible was authored by prophets of God and the Constitution was authored by men who were not prophets of God.

            That begs the question as to the purpose of each of the documents. The Bible clearly should be written by prophets of God since God is the author of our salvation and the Bible is His guide for us.

            The U.S. Constitution, however, is a framework for a government authored by the people who are the governed. Clearly the Bible and U.S. Constitution were written for totally different purposes, e.g. the salvation of all mankind everywhere, versus the governance of men by men in a specific country.

            The Old Testament records some of the guidance the Lord gave to Moses while he was head of the Israelite nation, which could most likely be applied to any nation run by a prophet, with people just extracted from slavery and wandering in the wilderness. However, absent those rare and very specific conditions, it would not work as a constitution for a modern government.

            We can discuss this in detail if you wish.

            And yes, I would be interested in examining all of your claims of conflict between the Bible and the U.S. Constitution.

          • Before we move on to other violations, where should we stand in regard to the first two that I pointed out? Should His people make covenants with those who exalt their own statutes as the supreme law of the land? Should we reestablish justice with our own statutes after justice has already been perfectly established?

          • You asked: “Should His people make covenants with those who exalt their own statutes as the supreme law of the land?”

            Answer: You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe the framers of the U.S. Constitution were attempting to subordinate God’s law with the constitution they were writing. The Constitution is supreme over all state courts. If you have thought otherwise, get Weiland out of your head and take a free course on the U.S. Constitution from a recognized College like Hillsdale.

            You asked: “Should we reestablish justice with our own statutes after justice has already been perfectly established?”

            Answer: Yes, although the framers were not “reestablishing justice” as you said. They were enforcing God’s justice with more immediate penalties that would be executed by mortal judges as opposed to the one final judgment after death by Deity. Non believers tend to fear the immediate action of police more than a final judgment after death. Makes for a better shot at a civil society.

            Since you didn’t mention it, I assume you accept that the Bible and U.S. Constitution were written for different purposes, e.g. the salvation of all mankind everywhere (the Bible), versus the governance of men by men in a specific country (the U.S. Constitution).

            Glad that we established that for the record.

          • Your assumption is absolutely correct that I recognize that the Bible and the Constitution were written for diametrically opposed purposes. The Bible was written for the purpose of encouraging us to do things His way. The Constitution was written for the purpose of turning us from His way, toward the statutes of the heathen. The Bible is the Jesus book. How many times is Jesus mentioned in the Constitution?

          • That’s not what I said. The word was different.

            Yes I’m sure the framers of the Constitution sat in that sweltering heat plotting how to turn people away from God. I’m sure I’ve read that in my high school civics class some time ago. Just look at all the research and papers that agree that they had that goal from the beginning. The fact that the Constitution turned out to be responsible for turning this country from poor colonies to the greatest super power in 170 years was an unexpected side effect.

            But the one thing that proves it, is that Jesus’ name isn’t mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution, not even a footnote. Just all that nonsense about separation of powers and states rights and checks and balances and least we forget, the bill of rights. Yes, they had the gaul to limit the power of the government. People aren’t suppose to have rights, they are just suppose to recognize their responsibilities and press on. If they had just mentioned Jesus once. Just one time…

          • Materialism is certainly a factor when choosing which (G,g)od to serve:

            1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress votes against its renewal. At the time Andrew Jackson (who would become the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837) says,

            “If Congress has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”

            Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he stated,
            “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”
            Andrew Jackson’s response to this is to say,
            “You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”
            Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s reply to that being,
            “Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.”
            1812: Backed by Rothschild money, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned Bank of the United States to be renewed.

          • The Bible says we should obey God’s rules. The Constitution says we should obey man’s rules. There can be only one author of the supreme law of the land. Every nation has one (G,g)od or another. Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh. Before we move on to more specific differences, are you willing to acknowledge that we are not to make a covenant with those who “abideth not in the doctrine of Christ”? Are you willing to acknowledge that He has already established justice?

          • We already settled that the U.S. Constitution is not attempting to subordinate the Bible. In fact, it is also attempting to establish justice. Don’t forget Jesus said, “…he that is not against us is for us”.

            Who are you to question the Lord?

          • So if my coworkers and I decide that we are going to post radiation areas at 10 millirems per hour, at 30 centimeters from the source, instead of 5 millirems per hour, we would not be subordinating the Code of Federal Regulations? If two thirds of us are for it, does that make the NRC inspector happy?

          • You have just demonstrated why it is important to have BOTH commandments from God AND man made laws. If we had only the Bible to go by we wouldn’t have radiation protocols, traffic laws, food inspection laws, etc, all of which are extremely important for our safety and well being.
            Let’s recap again. So far in this discussion, we’ve established that the Lord has no prohibitions against man establishing laws in addition to His commandments, as long as man’s laws don’t conflict with God’s laws.
            And we’ve established that it is beneficial for man’s safety and well being that man establish laws. And that they don’t conflict with God’s laws.
            We’ve also shown that some men can misconstrue man’s laws to make it appear that man is trying to subordinate God’s laws. Specifically, the supremacy reference in the Constitution. Some men have misconstrued that to mean the federal laws are supreme over God’s law instead of over state laws which is in the text.
            Getting back to the meat of the discussion, do you actually have any examples where the U.S. Constitution is at cross purposes to the Bible? If not, what is the actual reason for your sympathy with Weiland’s anti-U.S. Constitution activism?

          • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that the two documents serve different purposes, and consequently different (G,g)ods: “That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric had been erected.”

            Forget about walking to please God, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:1. It’s all about our own happiness.

          • Where did Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall say that the U.S. Constitution and the Bible serve different purposes? Certainly not in the quote you used.

            Then you insinuated that following the U.S. Constitution precludes one from pleasing God without any evidence to substantiate your insinuation.

            I have been discussing if there are any problems with following both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. You have had several opportunities to present instances where they are at cross purposes, but you haven’t.

            If the Bible and U.S. Constitution are not at cross purposes, why are you supporting Ted R. Weiland’s anti-U.S. Constitution campaign?

          • The constitution says nothing of the sort. The constitution was written to be subordinate to the laws of creation and the creator as laid out in the Declaration of independence. Why do you want a theocracy?

          • For the same reason you want a theocracy. You want your god WeThePeople to author the supreme law of the land. I want the true and living God.

          • Nice to see that you are finally openly admitting that you are anti-american and desire a theocracy. Honesty is the best policy. Now lets talk about what the theocracy you desire looks like. Do you want the pope to rule?

          • Well a theocracy will not work in a vacuum. Who will be the high priests in this fantasy theocracy you desire?

          • “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”–Genesis 4:14

          • Totally agree. Now lets get to the real issue at hand, who on earth who will the high priests be? Will it be Ted and David?

          • No, we’re too old. We wouldn’t be allowed to do it, even if we wanted to. Numbers 4:23, 30 says let the whippersnappers between 30 and 50 do that sort of stuff.

          • Behold the lord of the rings…….I find it fascinating the we made it this far. The irony here is that the Declaration & Constitution are designed to allow man to rule himself separating powers that corrupt, yet we have fallen because to many just go along with bad leadership and don’t hold fast to it, while others openly advocate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have a wonderful day in Mordor or wherever you find yourself.

          • Thank you. My idea of good governance would be a government that does not disobey God. We are told to nominate decent men and that God is to choose by our casting of lots. Samuel told Saul that he would be king. Sure enough, when they cast lots, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen. Then the family of Matri. Then Saul. That’s how Matthias was chosen in the New Testament. Have you ever noticed, at election time, that nobody ever asks, What race of people should govern America? That sounds like a horribly racist question to ask. But doesn’t Deuteronomy 17:15 say that we are not to set a stranger to rule over us–that we are to choose from among our own brethren? Don’t strangers come to America because their own homelands, run by their own kind, are tyrannical places? Shouldn’t they be thrilled to be ruled exclusively by us? I would like to see individuals be forced to accept responsibility, rather than foisting that responsibility on the collective group, for pressing charges against wrongdoers. Our alphabet soup of agencies that could nail us at their next whim for any one of a multitude of illegalities is a much greater threat to liberty than individuals would be closely scrutinized for being “judgmental.” I would like to see what would happen if a person convicted of wrongdoing were to repent and then point out that we are instructed to forgive those who are repentant. If certain ones of the community were to feel that the repentant miscreant wasn’t really repentant, and carried out judgment on the accused, then their behavior henceforth would be closely scrutinized.

          • It is refreshing to chat with you David. We definitely agree on more than we disagree. If we the people were more Christian we would not be having this conversation because the representation would be much better. The old testament references are important and it clearly says the stranger is one that is not a brother in Christ. Great post I am glad we had this conversation and I appreciate you and your candor. Have a blessed day.

          • Have you delved into the effects of legal positivism AKA progressivism have had on America? In other words people morally inspired that create morale problems in their attempts to make things better.

          • Do you mean when someone wants to draw the standard right below his own behavior, so everyone worse than he is gets the axe, but he still runs free?

          • Yes it is reminiscent of the french revolution. Once you take God out of the equation all sorts of bad things happen. We must be aligned with the will of god not the will of man. Legal positivism the will of man foisted on others. As you said most succinctly the law is good if used lawfully………In this case lawfully means aligned with the objective will of what is good right and just for the individual, as in Christianity. Once America strayed from the original and went down this path we “progressed” from the ideology of the will of god to the ideology of the will of man through legal positivism. In other words its not the constitution that is the problem it is we the people that became the problem. If we can restore we the people and progress from the will of man, where we are today, back towards the will of god we the people will be just fine and the constitutional framework will work as founded for the the greatest good here on earth. Rousseau was wrong along with all of the secular philosophers that are embraced by men today. We need to return to the scottish common sense that undergirds or founding, which is a firm reliance on our savior Jesus Christ the greatest philosopher that ever lived.

          • When Biblical law was the supreme law of the land, we were still doomed because the law was not in our ancestors’ hearts. The Salem witch trials were examples of the law not being used lawfully. Did you ever hear of the safeguards of Deuteronomy 19:16-19 (what to do with false accusers) being invoked ? How many false accusers were burned at the stake?

            The laws follow the people. Disobedient people do away with good laws. Obedient people do away with bad laws. I like the first constitution that existed in America–the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639. It said Biblical law was supreme. If the Constitution of 1789 were amended to make any law contrary to Biblical law null and void, that would be a step in the right direction.

            You said, “… it is we the people that became the problem. If we can restore we the people and progress from the will of man, where we are today, back towards the will of God we the people will be just fine.” Yes, indeed. Jesus’ Gospel began with the individual and spread to the masses. Christianity will once again become Christendom one individual at a time. He didn’t come to abolish the law, not the entire law. He did away with what was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham (the Mosaic law). But He didn’t do away with the pre-existing law. We don’t offer animal sacrifices. But we are to continue obeying the commandments. The underlying foundation of the New Covenant is that He came to put the law in our hearts.

            Disobedience is to be revenged when our obedience is fulfilled (2 Corinthians 10:6). When the law becomes in our hearts, we will become obedient.

    • Grundune is a Mormon who rejects Christ and the Word of God (John 1:1,14, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 John 1:7-11, etc.) and whose “Doctrine and Covenants” demand he defend the Constitution as divinely inspired (D&C 101:80, etc.). He knows if the Constitution is exposed for the biblically seditious document it is, that the entire Mormon house of cards comes tumbling down.

    • KA is an anti-U.S. Constitution activist determined to abolish the Constitution and replace it with one man rule. He ignores the generations of liberty and freedom Americans have enjoyed thanks to the Constitution.

    • Hey “Kingdom Ambassador”… His Name is JEHOVAH … NOT yahweh !!! Maybe YOU should READ A REAL BIBLE !!!

      • Please explain:

        “79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

        80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”–Doctrine and Covenants 101:80

        And who are the Mormons to exalt their opinions above the word of God, which uses slavery to establish Justice?

    • So the American Constitution is the root of all evil. I stand in awe of your brilliance. Please pass the Koolaid.

  8. 1984 here we come! Just a few years to late. The American people have not fallen quite as fast as the NWO/global elites would have liked.

Comments are closed.